SUPREME
r _ '"'
TROY JACKSON,
Petitioner,
BY_
v.
J: 33
- - i
PROVIDED TO COLUMBIA C.I.
ON v^< ' ~ ' , ,—
FOR MAILING ^L4i±
Case No.:
J alb
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
/
PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
Troy Jackson / # 683942
Columbia Correctional
Institution
216 S.E. Corrections Way
Lake City, Florida 32025
Pro Se Petitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content
Page No.
Table of Contents
i
Table of Citations
ii
Statement of the Case and Facts
1
Summary of the Argument
2
Argument
3
Point One
Whether the opinion of the Fourth District Court of
Appeal in Jackson v. State, 4D09-4091 (Fla. 4th DCA,
December 1, 2010) expressly and directly conflicts with
the opinion in Hall v. State, 821 So.2d. 1154, 1155 (Fla.
2nd DCA 2002).
Conclusion
4
Certificate of Service
4
Certificate of Compliance
5
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Citation
Page No.
Bover v. State, 797 So.2d. 1246 (Fla. 2002)
3
Hall v. State, 821 So.2d. 1154 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002)
2,3
Jackson v. State, 4D09-4091 (Fla. 4th DCA, December 1,2010)
1,3
Other Authorities
Fla. R. Cr. P. 3.800(a)
1,2
§ 775.084, Fla. Stat.
1,3
§ 775.084(1 )(b)(l), Fla. Stat.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In 1995, Petitioner incurred judgment of convictions for one count armed
robbery and one count aggravated assault in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, in case number 1994-20534CF-10A.
As a result of said convictions, Petitioner was sentenced to forty years
state prison as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) based on a previous
conviction for robbery.
On August 10, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence
pursuant to Fla. R. Cr. P. 3.800(a) asserting two alleged claims of error: 1) An
issue involving a prior Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence; 2) That the sentence
fails to comport with the statutory requirements of § 775.084, Fla. Stat. The second
issue is the only one worthy of consideration.
On December 1, 2010, the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied relief by
way of written opinion.
See: Jackson v. State, 4D09-4091 (Fla. 4th DCA,
December 1, 2010). Petitioner moved the District Court for rehearing, which was
denied February 4, 2011.
On March 2, 2011, Petitioner timely submitted his
Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction. The instant brief on jurisdiction now
follows.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
On review from denial of Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence pursuant to
Fla. R. Cr. P. 3.800(a) the Fourth DCA affirmed on the basis of the decision
reached in Hall v. State, 821 So.2d. 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002).
The
reasoning for the holding in Hall, supra stands for the proposition that only one
prior violent felony is required to qualify as a habitual violent felony offender
under § 775.084(l)(b)(l).
This position is misplaced under these facts because
Petitioner was not arguing the applicability of the "one prior violent predicate" at
issue in Hall.
Rather, Petitioner argues that the transformation of the habitual
offender law in effect at the time he committed his qualifying offenses predated the
separation of the statute as a whole that enabled him to be sentenced as an HVO.
Insomuch as this claim has not been addressed on its merit, constitutes a
grave fundamental error, and expressly and directly is in conflict with the holding
in Hall, supra, this cause should now be resolved accordingly.
court vested with proper jurisdiction to resolve the conflict.
This is the only
ARGUMENT
POINT I
WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN JACKSON V.
STATE, 4D09-4091 (FLA. 4th DCA, DECEMBER 1,
2010) EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICTS
WITH THE OPINION IN HALL
V. STATE, 821
SO.2D. 1154,1155 (FLA. 2nd DCA 2002).
Petitioner
contends
that
the
decision
in Jackson,
supra,
is
factually
distinguishable from those decided in Hall. In Hall the District Court was asked to
decide if the habitual offender statute in 1991 required one or two prior qualifying
offenses
to
necessitate
application
of the
habitual
violent
felony
offender
enhancement.
The prior qualifying offenses in Jackson, supra occurred in 1989. Petitioner
was sentenced during the period that § 775.084 began a wild transformation right
up until the time of his sentencing. The evolution of the statute made Petitioner's
1989 crime more onerous than it was at the time it was allegedly committed.
In 1993, the legislature amended § 775.084 after a brash of attacks involving
the sequential conviction issues.
(Fla. 2001).
See: Bover v. State, 797 So.2d. 1246, 1248-49
Petitioner argues that because the requisite conviction occurred well
before the sequential conviction rule was decided, the law in effect prior to the
amendment must be viewed as a whole and is inapplicable to the facts of this case.
The trial court erred reversibly in denying this claim and the District Court
exacerbated the error when it affirmed.
The facts at issue in Hall, supra, are
clearly distinguishable from the facts presented in Jackson, supra and this conflict
is susceptible to resolution by the Court.
Unless and until it is, there can be no
uniformity.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the express and direct conflict between the instant case and Hall,
Petitioner respectfully prays this Honorable Court accept jurisdiction to resolve
misapplication and preserve uniformity.
Respectfully submitted,
Troy/acjcson / # 683942
Columbia Correctional Institution
216 S.E. Corrections Way
Lake City, Florida 32025
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
mailed to: Office of the Attorney General, PL-01, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-1050, by first delivering to prison officials this "7
■tU
day of March 2011.
Troy^factfson / # 683942
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been prepared in compliance
with Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(a)92) using Times New Roman 14 point font.
Troy-/acl/son/# 683942